Silicon Valley No Revenue | Radio On Internet

> starting from 2 million && 93% growth > 9.45 months to become a billionaire (500x growth) There is a much simpler way to become a billionaire. No Revenue (Silicon Valley): ▶ this video

Mythos release feels like Silicon Valley "don't take revenue" advice: ▶ this video ""If you show the model, people will ask 'HOW BETTER?' and it will never be enough. The model that was the AGI is suddenly the +5% bench dog. But if you have NO model, you can say you're worried about safety! You're a potential pure play... It's not about how much you research, it's about how much you're WORTH. And who is worth the most? Companies that don't release their models!"

I mean is it any different from 15 years ago? Silicon Valley has been a parody of itself for long time now ▶ this video

"I don't want to make a little bit of money every day. I want to make a fuck ton of money all at once." ▶ this video

Could this moment finally be the thing that finally sinks Tesla's ridiculous stock price? As long as the Robotaxi is just and idea, it can't fail. Once it's real, people can realize what a joke it is. Relevant Silicon Valley: "If you show revenue, people will ask 'HOW MUCH?' and it will never be enough. The company that was the 100xer, the 1000xer is suddenly the 2x dog. But if you have NO revenue, you can say you're pre-revenue! You're a potential pure play... It's not about how much you earn, it's about how much you're worth. And who is worth the most? Companies that lose money!" ▶ this video

> Amusingly, if you're pre-revenue, none of this matters (you have no income at all, so it doesn't matter what your expenses are.) ▶ this video

Russ (VC): Why would you go after revenue? Richard (CEO): Because... to make money? Russ: No. If you show revenue, people will ask how much, and it will never be enough. The company that was the hundred x-er, the thousand x-er, becomes the two x dog. But if you have no revenue, you can say you're pre-revenue ... you're a potential pure play. It's not about how much you earn, it's about what you're worth, and who's worth the most? Companies that lose money. Pinterest, SnapChat, no revenue. Amazon has lost money every fucking quarter for the last twenty fucking years and that Bezos motherfucker is the king. There's no revenue. No one wants to see revenue. Go! Richard: Oh, um, I just thought that mainly the goal of companies is to make money. Russ: Yeah, no no no, that's not how it works. I don't want to make a little bit of money every day, I want to make a fuckton of money all at once. ROI. ROI! — Silicon Valley, "Bad Money" (2015). ▶ this video

>it seems crazy to me to not try for profitability I'm reminded of the Silicon Valley bit about no revenue ▶ this video It probably looks better to be not really trying for profitability and losing $5bn a year than trying hard and losing $4bn

The show Silicon Valley had a great bit that mirrors this advice (on why you don't want revenue): ▶ this video

The engineer who already has a job at a random company has a known skill level and growth trajectory. The engineer out of a good school has an unknown growth trajectory. Conditioned on the accomplishments of alumni at the school and the (subjective) acceptance bar of the school, the new grad engineer could have a much steeper growth trajectory than the established one. Silicon Valley got this right on the money ironically [1]. If you have nothing to show, people assume a potential future ability level rather than basing their decisions on your actual ability. [1] ▶ this video

I don’t know much about the stock market outside of throwing any savings I can muster into a vanguard fund, but articles like this remind me of the scene from Silicon Valley where the Pied Piper team is talking about finding a revenue stream. Their investor, the Mark Cuban caricature, Russ Hanneman butts in and yells at them about the dangers of showing revenue and how it proves you might only be a 2x-er. "It's not about how much you earn. It's about what you're worth. And who is worth the most? Companies that lose money!" He goes on to argue that if you don’t show any revenue then the possibilities are left only to the imagination! Pre-revenue = maybe a 100x-er at some point! Obviously silly and over simplified, but I do think that there is truth in the humor. Once this company gets its act together, it could shoot to the moon! Edit: Here's a link to the scene: ▶ this video

Well, TSLA is a very sentiment-heavy stock, so it's hard or impossible to say what exactly caused this recent run. For example, they've been guiding Q3 and Q4 profitablity since ~Q2 or earlier. They started building the Shanghai factory in Q1, the Model Y was announced in March, the Truck's been talked up since forever, etc. What's really changed is that the Taycan is no longer a mystery, but a real car with a real price tag and real range. The ID.3 is almost-real and struggling with software issues. The E-Tron, new Leaf, new Bolt, etc have real sales figures. When these were unknowns, you could be reasonably skeptical of Tesla's claims, but that's increasingly untenable. Or, as the great Silicon Valley philosothoughtleader Russ Hanneman said: ▶ this video

Probably the guy with the car and the doors. He can give more "wisdom" like this "wisdom" while wearing it: ▶ this video (To be clear the joke is he's a moron but everyone listens to him because he has money)

FTA: > Palihapitiya slammed the start-up cycle of raising funding rounds and spending money to boost user growth to attract bigger funding rounds. Hence, growth leads to funding leads to more growth leads to more funding. Another aspect stated in parody: ▶ this video

This reminds me of a scene from the popular TV show Silicon valley. ▶ this video Smartphones, youtube, facebook and many other success stories had exponential growth. Once a product/idea goes big, there will always be people who do not like something about it. Thats the cost of making a product that everyone can use. A better example is the idea of money itself. Its an invention used by almost everyone in the world, We still have people who absolutely hate money with passion based on their own principles that are right for them. Overall it did more good to humanity. We have created an economic world, where good ideas travel faster and share the rewards with everyone. Its a good thing. The alternative would be a hierarchical society where some other parts of the society will always be left behind.

Good on you - please keep going. I think this scene of Silicon Valley really hit the nail on the head regarding a lot of the money flowing into startups: ▶ this video

A while back I wrote an article [1] saying that there was no advertising on Quora because that would mean that the founders would have to accept more realistic valuations for their business, and at that time it seemed they were happy to bring investors on using the "greater fool" theory. However, as Russ Hanneman [1] says: "If you show revenue people will ask how much and it will never be enough". So the question now is: will the introduction of ads harm Quora's valuation? [1] link [2] ▶ this video

There is, ironically, a Silicon Valley episode where this is explained satirically [1]. That the person responding to you basically repeats this argument says something - not sure what exactly. [1] ▶ this video

"[VCs are] not looking for a profitable business; instead, they’re looking for growth that provides the opportunity for a 100x exit. " I don't want to make a little bit of money every day, I want to make a fucking ton of money all at once ( ▶ this video )

> I don't want to make a little bit of money every day. I want to make a fuck ton of money all at once. ▶ this video